Objectively defining the public interest

IVN published a Dissident Politics article on how to objectively define the concept of the public interest and why it matters. The point is to create an intellectual framework or political ideology that is broad enough to limit the tendency of narrower ideologies, e.g., liberalism, conservatism, socialism or laissez-faire capitalism to unconsciously distort fact and logic so that they conform to narrower ideological constraints. The article is here.

Political principles for objective politics

Dissident Politics published an article at Daily Kos on the ideology needed to make politics more objective than it now is. The article is here and reproduced below.

Incoherent politics

At one time, politics and political rhetoric more or less made sense most of the time. Or, at least it that’s what it seemed. In the 1990’s, that was true less often and by the early 2000’s politics and political rhetoric appeared to be incoherent nearly all the time. That was from a mostly objective, open-minded point of view.

From subjective liberal democrat and conservative republican contemporary viewpoints, their own side mostly makes sense, while the opposition sounds more and more incoherent at best, and stupid, lunatic and/or treasonous at worst. How independents, about 43% of Americans according to one poll, see both sides today is unclear. Since independents self-identify as independent it probably isn’t much different than how the two sides see each other.

Casting about in liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist and religious theory or ideology for insight shed no light why politics seemed so incoherent. Other factors, such as corruption of politics by special interest money, or sacrifice of the public interest in service to the two-party system (the press-media included) didn’t really explain the situation either. All of those factors seemed to be secondary to something else. In other words, neither political, economic or religious theory nor a subverted political system offered a convincing basis for an explanation.

Failed ideologies

The sources of mainstream theory completely contradict each other despite being held in the highest esteem by their supporters. In addition, different partisan factions looking at the same issue usually see vastly different facts and their common sense usually arrives at opposite or incompatible policy choices. Simply dismissing the two-party system, including the press-media, as corrupt and/or inept does not explain that situation. What passes for acceptable facts, rhetoric and logic among the partisans in some factions but not others has to be based on inexplicable hysteria/dementia or something else.

The biology of being human

Looking outside the authoritative sources that drive mainstream political opinion provides the answer. Over the last 40 years or so, social and biological sciences have figured out enough of the biology of human cognition to reasonably explain the situation. It turns out that humans are mostly irrational or subjective about how they see reality and apply logic or common sense to what they see. Reasoning or objectivity is much less influential and usually not involved. When humans do apply reason to issues or situations, the point of the exercise is to find the best reasons why somebody else ought to join us in our judgment, not to critically assess the accuracy or logical coherence of our own perceptions of reality and beliefs.

In addition to intuitive-subjective dominance, human intuition in politics operates in a personal moral framework. Politics and policy choices are constrained by morality based on the values of conservative and liberal ideology and how those moral frameworks affect reasoning and perceptions of reality or facts. Social science research indicates that personal ideology is a key driver of false fact beliefs and presenting ideologues real facts has limited capacity to affect personal opinions. When faced with facts or logic that undermines personal belief, humans tend to look for support, while rejecting or ignoring disconfirming evidence. It all happens fast and unconsciously.

This happens all the time in politics and real life. People who deny that anthropogenic climate change is real or caused by humans reject the science and/or scientists who support it. People who distrust vaccines as dangerous and refuse to get their kids vaccinated do the about the same thing. Facts and logic that undercuts personal morals or beliefs are routinely downplayed or rejected.

Given the way the human mind works as a spin machine, it raises two fundamental questions. First, is it better to rationally understand the way the world really is or how we want it to be? Second, is there a better way to approach politics despite our innate unconscious biological urges to distort fact and logic in the name of personal ideology or morals?

Fact and logic is better than fantasy and illogic

Most ideologues of any political, economic or religious persuasion would argue that they do base their politics on facts and logic. There is an implied, if not explicit, consensus that fact- and logic-based politics is better than false fact- and biased logic-based politics. Even without the implicit consensus, the first question’s answer is that fact- and logic-based politics is better. People who disagree are wrong from an objective point of view.

An affirmative answer to the second question becomes apparent if one (i) accepts the foregoing description of the biology of subjective politics and (ii) prefers reality over fantasy. Political beliefs are common sense and unconscious intuitive moral judgments that come with standard political ideologies. Since ideological morals or values bend fact and logic to their dictates, objective politics necessarily has to be based on political ideology or morals that are designed to minimize unconscious distortion of facts and logic.

Three morals for objectivity 

The simplest set of objective morals or political principle that accomplishes the goal of minimizing distortion is to accept the ideology of (1) fidelity to unbiased fact and (2) fidelity to unbiased logic, (3) in service to a broadly but objectively defined public interest. The broad public interest definition is needed to minimize the inevitable fact and logic distortion that narrow ideologies such as liberalism, conservatism, capitalism or socialism generates. No existing political, economic or religious theory is based on the modern understanding of the biology of human cognition and that, coupled with ideologies not based on that understanding, serve to make politics incoherent, inefficient and relatively corrupt. No prior theory of politics could be based on modern cognitive science because that knowledge did not exist until now.

Obviously, asking people to switch to a political ideology or moral framework based on fact, logic and serving the public interest asks a quite a lot. Conservatives will reject it as creeping socialism or worse and defend the conservative values, e.g., anti-government, low regulation sentiment, that made America great. Liberals would similarly reject it and defend the liberal values, e.g., the social safety net, that made America great.

However, for people who see the two-party system and its business as usual as incoherent, inept or corrupt, this proposal to base politics on the reality of human biology should be of some interest. If nothing else, it represents the first fundamentally new approach to politics in at least the last millennium or two. Think of the proposal as objective politics v. 2.0, with everything that has gone before as subjective politics v. 1.0.

The ideology of terror

IVN published a Dissident Politics article on the ideology and logic that underpinned the recent attack on civilians in Paris. The article included this: 

If the Paris tragedy inspires in some of us who mourn a moment of reflection, and a better understanding of the limited capacity of the human mind to see reality and think rationally about it, then the lives in Paris were not lost in vain.

Better understanding of this human frailty cannot change what happened. But, it can open minds and that helps to see people and what they do in new ways. Something in that better understanding might point to a better solution.

The solution may be slow, messy and painful. And, it may be too late to affect this particular brand of terror. Despite that, it just might be a path without war, if not now, then in the future.

The article is here.

Free speech: Quotes & commentary

These quotes and comments on free speech in politics show some of the historical and legal bases that built and support the ongoing vacuous emptiness of modern American politics. Commentary on how some modern commentators see free speech in politics.

Both truth or facts and common sense in politics are mostly subjective because the ideologies that filter reality and common sense are mostly subjective. In other words, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, socialism and Christianity are all largely based on subjective political, economic or religious principles, dogma or morals. 

What passes for fact and logic as seen through one ideological lens, e.g., liberalism or socialism, often looks like lies or deceit and irrational or incoherent nonsense as seen through another lens, e.g., conservatism or capitalism. Because of that, it is difficult, if not impossible, to craft laws intended to limit political spin or false speech. In essence, almost everything is spin or false speech from one ideological point of view or another.

Nothing here is intended to advocate any law limiting free speech. Instead, the point of this post is to simply point out the unspun reality of how little respect unbiased facts and logic receive in our two-party system. It is no wonder that the American people are generally misinformed and distrustful of both government and political opposition. In view of all the misinformation, conscious or not, there is a very good reason for distrust.

Federal courts and free speech

“But it cannot be the duty, because it is not the right, of the state to protect the public against false doctrine. The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion. In this field, every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945), arguing that a Texas state law that required labor organizers to register with the state before making a public speech to enlist support for a labor union, a lawful activity, violated Collins' First Amendment free speech rights. The court makes it very clear that protected speech includes protection for lies. It it were otherwise, people would not need to be their own watchman for truth.

  “Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee. . . . Even when considering some instances of defamation and fraud, moreover, the Court has been careful to instruct that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment. The statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 656, 2012 in finding that the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals, was an unconstitutional violation of the defendant's free speech rights. Defendant Alvarez plead guilty to falsely claiming that he had received the Medal of Honor, but his admittedly false claim was protected on First Amendment free speech grounds. 

Commentary on free speech

“It's totally legal to lie! People lie in private all the time, of course, it is no problem. But it is also fine to lie to the public. . . . . It is even conceivable that sometimes columnists lie to the public. Lying to the public is the American way. . . . If you run a campaign of thoroughgoing falsehood that tricks people into voting for you, journalists will say mean things about you, and that will be the full extent of the consequences. . . . [On the other hand, there is a man] who allegedly sent some fake tweets about some stocks, making him a total profit of $97. He faces 25 years in prison.”
Matt Levine writing in November 2015 for BloombergView about the legality of lying to the public in politics. He contrasted that with the illegality of lying to investors for commercial profit. The former is know as constitutionally protected free political speech. The latter is criminal fraud. 

“After the primaries are over, politicians need the independent voters to win and woo them with attention in November. But once they have their victory or -- to use the vernacular -- get what they want, independent voters are forgotten as quickly as a one-night stand. Democratic and Republican office holders are beholden to their base supporters, the special interests who donate time and money to them and the parties that control both candidate selection and the agenda.”

Linda Killian writing in The Atlantic in February 2012 about how candidates would treat independent voters in the 2012 November elections.
  

“Politicians break their promises and modify their positions all the time, of course. They BS us about their opinions and carefully craft identities that are palatable to the average voter. When a person enters this political universe, we need accept that most of the things we hear are, at best, poetic truths. But, yet, there is still a big difference between BSing and lying– though the latter is . . . . pardonable if you happen to be lying for the cause.”

David Harsanyi writing for The Federalist in February 2015 arguing that president Obama was a liar about his position on same-sex marriage, which the president allegedly falsely portrayed to the public as an evolution in his personal opinion. The article attempts to explain the murky, probably non-existent, difference between apparently acceptable BSing in politics and unacceptable lying.

“As former — and maybe reformed — elected officials, we know how much politicians like to talk about good news: tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, job growth announcements. But they are far less interested in talking about the bad news and hard choices on the horizon as the federal debt continues on an unsustainable upward path. Politicians don’t see big constituencies for that kind of news, and no special interests score them on whether they discuss it with voters. Even the close cousin of bad news — blunt talk — is usually avoided in politics.”
Former New Hampshire republican U.S. senator Judd Gregg and former Indiana democratic U.S. senator Evan Bayh writing for Roll Call in February 2015 on the need for blunt talk about the federal budget in the face of future debt projections. This suggests that politicians avoid honest talk to the American people because their personal incentives are aligned to reward deceit. Avoiding bad news and blunt talk punishes politicians. That clearly implies that deceiving the public rewards politicians much more than it damages them. In turn, that implies that politicians work first and foremost for themselves and second (or maybe third behind special interests with money) for the public interest.

An objective framework to analyze conflicting personal rights and freedoms

Many, possibly most, liberal vs. conservative disagreements include differences of opinion about how a law, policy or Supreme Court decision affects personal freedoms. Press coverage of these subjective ideological disputes is poor or even detrimental to the public interest because it tends to simply mirror the unresolvable, one-sided partisan arguments and their biased basis in reality.

Although it may be entertaining, that kind of subjective press coverage sheds no light on the reality of how individual rights conflicts actually affect specific rights, e.g., freedom of speech vs. a right to equal protection of law. Mainstream and partisan press coverage never includes an objective analytic framework in which rights and freedoms conflict situations can be rationally explained and understood.

IVN has published two Dissident Politics articles that dealt with analyzing conflicting personal rights and freedoms after the Supreme Court's June 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges decision extended the fundamental right to marriage to same-sex couples. The first article examined the impacts of the exercise of the right of same-sex couples to marry in the context of freedom of religion and the second analyzed rights conflicts in the context of commerce. The two analyses were different because the rights involved were different and because positive and negative impacts on rights differed in differing ways for different groups of affected Americans.

For both analyses, Dissident Politics relied on essentially the same analytic framework to assess personal rights and freedom impacts. The analysis is based on the following four-step protocol: 

(1) Considering whether each affected freedom or right is constitutionally fundamental; (2) determining whether (i) impacts are high, moderate, low or none-negligible, (ii) impacts are positive (freedom-expanding and/or easier or less costly to exercise) or negative, and (iii) the approximate number of people in major relevant groups; (3) considering current and projected public opinion; and (4) assessing whether an overall net freedom gain or loss best serves the public interest based on objectively balancing all significant competing considerations and interests.  

Following that protocol provides the information needed to reasonably assess (i) the reality of how such conflicts actually affect various groups of people, (ii) approximately how many people are included in relevant affected groups and (iii) impacts on the broader public interest.

Although this analytic framework is not perfectly objective, it is much more objective, complete, nuanced and balanced than the fragmented and usually one-sided content that the mainstream media, e.g., the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, conveys to the American people. Relative to the generally harmful content that the partisan-biased media provides, e.g., the National Review or The Federalist, this framework constitutes a far better way to assess rights and freedoms conflicts.

The framework should be applicable to assessing conflicts in all rights and freedoms contexts, e.g., from gun control and abortion laws to equal protection of law rights in commerce. For example, it can be used to analyze damage to personal privacy rights in the context of government surveillance for national security. That issue is likely to become more urgent in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks on civilians in Paris. This protocol also works for analyzing conflicts between laws, freedom of speech and equal protection rights. Different conflicts and impacts exist in states that have laws banning discrimination in commerce on the basis of sexual orientation compared to states with no such anti-discrimination laws.

The press and free speech: More harmful than not?

IVN has published a Dissident Politics article on the press, freedom of speech and the usually big differences in the content of reporting on various issues, people and events in politics. The article raises the question of whether the situation constitutes a net benefit or service to the public interest in view of the vast differences in content reported from different sources. The article is here.